get_page_links

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates this is a read-only operation (listing links) without side effects, which is good. However, it doesn't disclose details like whether all links (including hidden or external) are returned, or what happens if no page is loaded. The basic behavior is transparent but lacks nuance.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler. It efficiently conveys purpose, output format, and intended use.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has zero parameters and low complexity. The description provides the return format and purpose. An output schema exists, so return value details are likely covered there. The main gap is not explicitly stating prerequisites (like having a page open), but 'current page' implies an active session, so it's not a significant omission. Overall, it's complete enough for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description naturally adds no parameter-specific semantics since none exist. The output format ({text, href}) is mentioned, providing some context about what the returned data will look like, which is helpful.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the specific action ('List') and resource ('current page's links'), and even specifies the output format as {text, href}. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_page_content or get_table by focusing on links specifically. The added purpose 'to help decide what to visit next' provides useful context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context by stating it helps decide what to visit next, implying it's useful before navigation. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the intended use case is sufficiently clear for a simple 0-parameter tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.